Show HN: Firefox in WebAssembly

Post by rlmineing_dead » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 11:03 PM UTC

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #28

MajesticHobo2 wrote: post #11

Browser sandboxing is now fully solved.

In mean... It kinda feels like this is legitimately true? An attacker trying to do anything on a user's machine through this would have to find a Firefox vulnerability and a vulnerability in the wasm runtime, which is such a high bar that I would actually feel remarkably safe running this thing. The only question is how performance works and whether there are any pain points using as a daily driver, but those feel li…

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 11:13 PM UTC

smalltorch wrote: post #35

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #29

>This port cost over 25k in opus/fable tokens for debugging and JIT research > This was just a fun experiment to push the boundaries of WebAssembly I'm a huge fan of the project, but I have to ask. If spending $25k is a "fun experiment", where exactly is your threshold for serious work?

I imagine it is 25k tokens not dollars

Post by ent101 » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 11:25 PM UTC

gnabgib wrote: post #37

ent101 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Puter's networking is open-source and e2e encrypted. Also, a regular browser doesn't give access to raw TCP sockets used for this, so it wouldn't be possible to route through your browser.

So it's just the three accounts you have now? (Show by @coolelectronics now and 7 months ago [1], show from you/@ent101 2d ago [0], 2025[2,3,4], 2024[5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D], 2023[E], @george0812 2022[F]) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48895945 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=coolelectronics [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45522061 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44193514 [4]: http…

Post by gnabgib » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 11:35 PM UTC

ent101 wrote: post #45

gnabgib wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's just the three accounts you have now? (Show by @coolelectronics now and 7 months ago [1], show from you/@ent101 2d ago [0], 2025[2,3,4], 2024[5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D], 2023[E], @george0812 2022[F]) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48895945 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=coolelectronics [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45522061 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44193514 [4]: http…

what do you mean? we're a team of 10 and have 390 contributors. We post regularly, including me.

Post by koolala » Wed, Jul 15, 2026, 11:40 PM UTC

rlmineing_dead wrote: post #36

Retr0id wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was reading your landing page at https://developer.puter.com/networking/ and was very confused by how you were achieving the "with no server or proxy" part, until much further down the page: > "the connection is tunneled over a single WebSocket to a Puter relay" Come on, it's both a server and a proxy, and it doesn't stop being those things just because you're calling it a relay.

apologies yes there is a wording error here, the correct wording is no CORS proxy, the reason why this is important is because cors proxies are inherently insecure (this is different because the TLS is done in your browser with a webassembly library). no servers is referring to you not needing to host servers in the same as the term "serverless". Such is the ways of modern tech terms I fear